Allowed

L.v.Sai Harshavardan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jun 2021WP/13041/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking building permission for a plot in an unapproved layout, relying on a prior order directing the municipality to accept the application and process it by collecting compounding charges and open space contributions as per a circular issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent municipality to accept and process the petitioner's application for building permission in terms of the specified circular.

L.v.Sai Harshavardan Reddy Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE SI r",";,ii 6l5,Pi l|l#S,ili^{Ar HYDERABAD}

¶2

,f;,y3.,",f,tJ1fi ,TilIififi ,?,^ju.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WR|T^pETtTtON NO: 13041 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

L.V.Sai Harshavardan Reddy, S/o. L.Srinivasa Reddy. Age _ 23 years, Occstudent, R/o. H.No- :-roS,''Dhaimo;'il|L.g",r,''Xffiad Mandal, Nizamabad District, Telangana State.

¶8

.,.PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

ThEState oI Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Municipal Administration andU rban Devetopment Depa rthent, Seireta riii, Hvo'.iru'6"i. i;iang; ;; St;i;'

¶11

The Nirmal Municiparity, Nirmar, Adirabad District, Rep. by its commissioner.

¶12

l..ResporuoErurs

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may 6e pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction more partiCularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents ln not considering for grant of building permission for construction of residential building in open plot No44214 in an extent of 266.66 sq.Yds, in Sy.No. 1108/uu/1 at Nirmal Shivar - Nirmal Town, Adilabad District, Telangana State, as the same is not come under cut of date of Layout Regularization Scheme, 2OZO as per G.O.Ms.No.131, dated 31 .8.2020, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to lMunicipalities Act and consequenfly direct the 2nd respondent to grant the building permission for construction of residential building in open plot No.44214 in an extent of 266.66 Sq.yds, in Sy.No. 1'108/Uu/1 at Nirmal Shivar - Nirmal Town, Adilabad District, Telangana State.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to grant the building permission for construction of residential building in open plot No.442l4 in an extent of 266.66 Sq.Yds, in Sy.No. 1108/Uu/1 at Nirmal Shivar - Nirmal Town, Adilabad District, Telangana State, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRl. N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MC

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

THE^{HON'BLESRIJUSTICE A'ABHISHEKREDDY} WRIT PETI^Tlo N No. 130^41ot7o21 ORDER: '^{i--+fr6 netitiofl€r' the learned} Heard^{the [earned counsel for the petitic} Government^{Pteader forMunicipat Administrationand Urban} Devetopment^{for respondentNo'1'and the tearned Standing Counselfor} Municipatity^{appearingfor respondent No'Z' With their consent'the} WritPetitionisdisposedofatthestageofadmissionitself. When the^{matteris takenuP for hearing'the tearned counselfor} the^{petitionerhassubmitted that the issueraisedin the presentwrit} petition^{is squaretY coveredbYthe orders PassedbY this Courtin} dated^74.10.2017 '^{and W.P.No.B64 of 7019'} W.P.No.23191^{of 2017} ' dated^{21 .01 .2019'}

¶21

The above^{said submissionis not disputed by theLearned Standing} Counsel^{appearingfor the respondent No'2herein'}

¶22

ln view of^{the same and for the reasonsatike in the order dated} 24.10.2017,^{passedin W'P'No'23191 ol 1017' this writ petitionis} disposed^{of directingthe respondentNo.z.Mun,icipatityto accept and} process the^{appticationof the petiticnerhereinfor buitdingpermission} in terms of^{the Circutar U'O'No'B/1545llPSlCCP/HO/GHMC/2016/485'} daled^{19174.4.2017,issued by the Commissioner' Greater Hyderabad} Municipat^{Corporation and passappropriate orders'as per taw'}

¶23

Themiscettaneouspetitionspending,ifany,shal'tstandclosed.

¶24

There shall^{be no order as to costs'}

¶25

SD/.T,TIRUMALA^DEVI ASSISTANT^REGIST R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Principal Secretary, trlunicipal^{Administration,and Urban Development} o"irrtr"ii^{siat" ot t'erangana,secretariat'Hyderabad' Telanganastate'} "Municipality' Nirmal' Adilabad District'

¶30

z it.t6 bommlssioner,^tttirmal

¶31

o.;^{C-Cto sri. Polisetty Radha Krishna' AdvocateIOPUC]} ; o;; cc^{to sri.N.Praveen Kumar' sc for MC (oPUC)} 5. Two CCs^{to GP t"|. rti"itip"i nominlstrationd U|.bunDevelopment' High Court} for the State^{of Telangana' [OUT]}

¶32

Two^{CD CoPies.}

¶33

(along with a copy of^{order dated24t10t2017 in WP No 23191of 2017 ')} \ Pt,'l^\),sP-

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/06/2021

ORDER

WP.No.13041 of 2021

k c f- 1 HE Si,6. f c,a
'{-
cJ
1 B ,iilil 2021 (,) )
N,,-r=]2

¶39

Disposing of the WP
Without costs.
B u
b
<br>

¶40

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶41

W.P.No.23191 of 2017

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

Heard Sri Polisetty Radhakrishna, learned counsel^{for the petitioner} and Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing^{Counselfor Respondent No.2-} Municipality.

¶44

According to the^petitioner, he^purchased an^{extentof 204 sq.yardsof} open^plot bearing Plot No.10^{in Sy.No.1210/Eof Metpally from one Puppala} Bhumeswar for a valuation consideration^{vide registered sale deed bearing} document No.9B0/2017 dated^{26.5.2017. It is also the caseof the petitioner} herein that his vendor was having^{an extentof Ac.1.01guntas of agricultural} land in the above survey number and^{the Revenueauthorities also issuedtitle} deed and^{pattadar passbook in respect of the said land.}

¶45

Admittedly, the^{petitioner herein purchasedthe plot in an unapproved} layout. The^grievance of^{the petitioner in the presentwrit petitionls thatthe} Respondent authorities are^{not acceptingthe application of the petltionerfor} grant of building permission on the^{groundthat the subject plot fallsunder} unapproved layout and^{is not recognised withinthe scheme introduced by the} 1't respondent vide G.O,Ms.No.151^{dated 2.11.2015.}

¶46

During the course of arguments,^{it is brought to the notice of the} Court that the Commissioner,^{Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,in} respect of unapproved^{layouts,issuedCircularU.O.No.B/1545 FPSI CCP IHO/} GHMC/2016/485 dated^{79124.4.2017and a copy of the sameis placed on} record by the learned^{counselfor petitioner as material paper and the said} Memo reads as under:

¶47

"Building permission in such plots/sites may be considered by the Competent Authority (HMDA/GHMC) by collecting basis^penalisation charges as per LRs - 2015 and 337o compounding fee on the same^plus open space contrlbution charges (14%) on the present market value of the site/plot applied for Building Permission".

¶48

It is very much evident from the above circular that the applications for building permissions can be considered by the competent authorities by collecting 33olo compounding fee on the same plus open space contribution charges at 14o/o on the market value of the plot applied for building permission. The Government issued the said memo in respect of the plots/sites, for which no application under Land Regularisation Scheme was submitted. It is also very much evident from the reading of the above memo that the building application of the petitioner herein deserves to be considered in terms of the said circular dated 19124.4.20L7 subject to compliance of statutory requirements.

¶49

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Respondent Municipality to accept the application of the petitioner herein for building permission in terms of the Circular U.O.No.B/1545 lTPSICCPIHOI GHMC/2016/485 dated 19124.4.2017 issued by the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and pass appropriate orders, as per law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

Datei 24.I0.20]7 DA

¶51

A.V.SESHA SAI, ]

L.v.Sai Harshavardan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.v.Sai Harshavardan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nagma Fatima Vs The State of Telangana

G.Madhuri Vs The State of Telangana

D. Janardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Ziauddin Hussany Vs The state of Telangana

Lakkam Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Kanaparthy Chiranjeeva Chary Vs The State of Telangana